The rule of rules

Generally, job discrimination complaints do little for those who aren't in a protected class. In fact, those non-protected workers even come off sounding like privileged elites who don't care about the downtrodden masses -- beneficiaries as they are of a "disparate impact" that is said to prove discrimination against a minority. But here's one kind of case that can benefit all workers (or at least screw them all equally, depending on the employer):

Brooks and Weathers walked in through different areas but their time clock cards registered the same time — 7:01 a.m.

The company alleged Brooks punched in for Weathers, a violation of company policy that calls for suspension or termination.

[. . .]

The decision by the Indiana Supreme Court upholds the initial ruling in the case made by the Michigan City Human Rights Commission, which also found race a motivating factor.

[. . .]

In its decision, the Supreme Court also cited the findings of the commission that white employees at the company engaged in "far more egregious" behavior and received "far less severe punishment."

The only way businesses can protect against losing such a case is to have a clear set of rules that is made available to everyone and to ensure that they are enforced universally and consistently, which is, of course, what they should have been doing anyway as a matter of employment ethics. We want that uniformity of application from the law, too general, and we think of it as unfair, it's usually because we've seen it used to give somebody a break who didn't deserve it or to smack down somebody who didn't deserve it.